pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11192 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🧮 math.OC

Robust Neural Policy Distillation of Long-Horizon FCS-MPC for Flying-Capacitor Three-Level Boost Converters

Jinjian Sheng , Kazumune Hashimoto , Shuang Zhao , Mahdieh S. Sadabadi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords neural networkpolicy distillationFCS-MPCflying-capacitor convertermodel predictive controlDAggerrobust controlpower electronics
0
0 comments X

The pith

A feedforward neural network can imitate an N-step FCS-MPC expert for flying-capacitor three-level boost converters while preserving voltage regulation and capacitor balancing under varied conditions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that long-horizon finite-control-set model predictive control, which improves transient performance and flying-capacitor balancing in FC-TLBCs but becomes too slow at high switching frequencies, can be replaced by a fast feedforward neural network. Expert trajectories are generated by beam search on an N-step FCS-MPC controller, with input voltage, load resistance, and component parameters randomized to build robustness, followed by a disagreement-based DAgger variant that relabels states where the student policy diverges from the expert. In simulation the resulting policy keeps stable regulation and balancing across nominal operation, operating-point shifts, and several parameter perturbations, while cutting computation time enough for real-time execution. The approach also transfers to a related NPC buck converter, where the pre-trained network speeds up learning compared with random initialization.

Core claim

Imitating an N-step FCS-MPC expert computed with beam search, using trajectories collected under randomized input voltage, load resistance, and component parameters together with disagreement-based DAgger relabeling, produces a feedforward neural network that maintains stable voltage regulation and flying-capacitor balancing in FC-TLBCs at far lower computational cost than the original controller.

What carries the argument

Disagreement-based DAgger variant that relabels on-policy states where the student neural network and beam-search FCS-MPC expert disagree, applied to trajectories generated with randomized physical parameters.

If this is right

  • The neural policy runs fast enough for high switching frequencies where the original N-step MPC is impractical.
  • Stable regulation and capacitor balancing are retained under nominal conditions, operating-point changes, and tested parameter perturbations.
  • Transferring the trained network to an NPC-type three-level buck converter improves sample efficiency over training from scratch.
  • Computational burden is reduced while the closed-loop behavior approximates the long-horizon expert.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hardware validation on a physical converter would be required to check whether the simulated robustness survives unmodeled effects such as switching delays or measurement noise.
  • The same distillation pipeline could be applied to other power-converter topologies where long-horizon MPC is desirable but currently too slow for real-time use.
  • Tighter bounds on expected parameter variation ranges could be used to focus the randomization and potentially reduce the amount of expert data needed.

Load-bearing premise

Randomized variations of input voltage, load resistance, and component parameters during expert data generation are sufficient to cover the distribution of real-world disturbances and model mismatch the converter will encounter.

What would settle it

In a hardware prototype, observing loss of voltage regulation or flying-capacitor voltage imbalance under a parameter perturbation outside the ranges used for randomization during training would falsify the robustness claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11192 by Jinjian Sheng, Kazumune Hashimoto, Mahdieh S. Sadabadi, Shuang Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FC-TLBC Topology sampled-data behavior, parameter variation, and performance adaptation have also been emphasized in converter applica￾tions [6], [26]–[28]. Nevertheless, their integration with long￾horizon FCS-MPC distillation remains limited. Positioning of This Work. Compared with prior studies that typically emphasize either fast neural approximation or limited robustness evaluation, and compared with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Closed-loop responses in Scenario 1 under nominal operating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative ANN closed-loop responses in Scenario 3 under simul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Topology of NPC-Buck Converter Algorithm 3 Transfer-Learning Evaluation Protocol 1: Stage 1: Source pre-training on FC-TLBC 2: Generate the FC-TLBC expert dataset DFC 3: Train a source ANN policy πθsrc on DFC 4: Evaluate source-domain accuracy to confirm convergence 5: Stage 2: Buck-3L training from scratch 6: Generate the Buck-3L expert dataset DBuck 7: Initialize πθscratch with random weights 8: Train πθ… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Closed-loop comparison in Transfer Learning Scenario 1 for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Disagreement-Based DAgger Sensitivity of S2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Disagreement-Based DAgger Sensitivity of S3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: DR Sensitivity of S2 10 30 50 80 100 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 SSE (a) Steady-state error SSE_VCf SSE_Vo 10 30 50 80 100 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 MSE (b) Mean squared error MSE_VCf MSE_iL 10 30 50 80 100 DR intensity r (% of full range) 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 Magnitude (c) Transient metrics (VCf) Mp_VCf (%) Overshoot_VCf (V) 10 30 50 80 100 DR intensity r (% of full range) 3 4 5 6 7 Magnitude … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: DR Sensitivity of S3 search expert providing less consistent labels in rarely visited states. This suggests that Disagreement-Based DAgger is highly sample-efficient: a few thousand additional expert queries are sufficient to obtain most of the improvement, especially in peak/overshoot behavior. B. Domain Randomization Intensity Sensitivity To evaluate DR intensity, we scale the randomization range as r ∈… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Long-horizon finite-control-set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) can improve transient regulation and flying-capacitor balancing in flying-capacitor three-level boost converters (FC-TLBCs). However, searching over switching sequences becomes computationally expensive at high switching frequencies. We train a feedforward neural network to imitate an $N$-step FCS-MPC expert computed with beam search. To improve robustness, expert trajectories are generated under randomized input voltage, load resistance, and component parameters, and a disagreement-based DAgger variant is used to relabel on-policy states where the student and expert disagree. In simulation, the learned policy maintains stable voltage regulation and capacitor balancing under nominal conditions, operating-point changes, and perturbations of several physical parameters. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach by reducing the computational burden. We also demonstrate transfer to an NPC-type three-level buck converter, where initializing from the FC-TLBC network improves sample efficiency compared with training from scratch.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes distilling a long-horizon FCS-MPC expert (computed via beam search) into a feedforward neural network policy for voltage regulation and flying-capacitor balancing in FC-TLBCs. Robustness is pursued by generating expert trajectories under randomized input voltage, load resistance, and component parameters, combined with a disagreement-based DAgger variant for on-policy relabeling. Simulation results are reported to show stable regulation under nominal conditions, operating-point shifts, and parameter perturbations, with reduced online computation and improved sample efficiency upon transfer initialization to an NPC three-level buck converter.

Significance. If the simulation outcomes hold under the stated conditions, the work offers a concrete route to deploy long-horizon MPC performance in high-frequency power converters where exhaustive search is prohibitive. The explicit randomization of physical parameters and the transfer-learning result to a topologically related converter are strengths that could inform similar distillation efforts in other switched-mode systems.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (Simulation Results): The abstract and results section state that the policy maintains stability under parameter perturbations, but no quantitative metrics (e.g., mean/variance of output voltage ripple, capacitor voltage deviation, or number of Monte-Carlo trials) are provided to support the claim; adding these would strengthen the evidence.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1 (Expert Generation): The randomization ranges for input voltage, load, and component parameters are described qualitatively; explicit numerical intervals and justification relative to typical converter tolerances would clarify the coverage of the robustness claim.
  3. [Figure 6] Figure 6 (Transfer experiment): The sample-efficiency improvement when initializing from the FC-TLBC network is shown, but the architecture adaptation details (e.g., output layer resizing, fine-tuning epochs) are not fully specified; a short table or paragraph would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary and significance assessment of our work on distilling long-horizon beam-search FCS-MPC into a robust feedforward neural policy for FC-TLBC voltage regulation and capacitor balancing, including the transfer result to the NPC buck converter. We appreciate the recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were raised in the report, so we have no point-by-point rebuttals to provide at this stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical imitation-learning pipeline: a feedforward NN is trained to mimic trajectories from an N-step FCS-MPC expert (computed via beam search) under randomized operating conditions, with a disagreement-based DAgger variant for on-policy relabeling. All reported outcomes are simulation demonstrations of closed-loop stability and balancing under nominal, shifted, and perturbed parameters. No load-bearing mathematical derivation, uniqueness theorem, or first-principles prediction is present that reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation, or input data. The approach relies on standard, externally verifiable techniques (randomized sampling, DAgger) whose correctness does not depend on the target results. Hence the central claim remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that simulation trajectories generated under randomized parameters adequately represent real hardware behavior. No new physical entities or mathematical axioms are introduced; the work is purely empirical.

free parameters (2)
  • randomization ranges for voltage, load, and component parameters
    These ranges are chosen by the authors to generate expert data; their exact bounds are not stated in the abstract and directly affect robustness claims.
  • neural network architecture and training hyperparameters
    Standard free parameters in any imitation-learning pipeline; their values determine whether the student successfully imitates the expert.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5485 in / 1265 out tokens · 24992 ms · 2026-05-10T15:29:34.749501+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Direct control strategy for a four-level three-phase flying-capacitor inverter,

    F. Defa ¨y, A.-M. Llor, and M. Fadel, “Direct control strategy for a four-level three-phase flying-capacitor inverter,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 2240–2248, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Finite-set model- based predictive control for flying-capacitor converters: Cost function design and efficient FPGA implementation,

    T. J. Vyncke, S. Thielemans, and J. A. Melkebeek, “Finite-set model- based predictive control for flying-capacitor converters: Cost function design and efficient FPGA implementation,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1113–1121, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Guidelines for weighting factors design in model predictive control of power converters and drives,

    P. Cortes, S. Kouro, B. La Rocca, R. Vargas, J. Rodriguez, J. I. Leon, S. Vazquez, and L. G. Franquelo, “Guidelines for weighting factors design in model predictive control of power converters and drives,” in 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, pp. 1–7, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    State of the art of finite control set model predictive control in power electronics,

    J. Rodriguez, M. P. Kazmierkowski, J. R. Espinoza, P. Zanchetta, H. Abu-Rub, H. A. Young, and C. A. Rojas, “State of the art of finite control set model predictive control in power electronics,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1003–1016, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Model predictive control for power converters and drives: Advances and trends,

    S. Vazquez, J. Rodriguez, M. Rivera, L. G. Franquelo, and M. No- rambuena, “Model predictive control for power converters and drives: Advances and trends,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 935–947, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Sensitivity of predictive controllers to parameter variation in five-phase induction motor drives,

    C. Mart ´ın, M. Berm ´udez, F. Barrero, M. R. Arahal, X. Kestelyn, and M. J. Dur ´an, “Sensitivity of predictive controllers to parameter variation in five-phase induction motor drives,”Control Engineering Practice, vol. 68, pp. 23–31, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Performance of multistep finite control set model predictive control for power electronics,

    T. Geyer and D. E. Quevedo, “Performance of multistep finite control set model predictive control for power electronics,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1633–1644, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Long-horizon direct model predictive control for power converters with state constraints,

    R. Keusch, H.-A. Loeliger, and T. Geyer, “Long-horizon direct model predictive control for power converters with state constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 340– 350, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Finite-control-set model predictive control with improved steady-state performance,

    R. P. Aguilera, P. Lezana, and D. E. Quevedo, “Finite-control-set model predictive control with improved steady-state performance,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 658–667, 2012

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    A neural-network-based model predictive control of three-phase inverter with an output LC filter,

    I. S. Mohamed, S. Rovetta, T. D. Do, T. Dragi ˇcevi´c, and A. A. Z. Diab, “A neural-network-based model predictive control of three-phase inverter with an output LC filter,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 124737– 124749, 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    An artificial neural network-based model predictive control for three-phase flying-capacitor multilevel inverter,

    A. Bakeer, I. S. Mohamed, P. B. Malidarreh, I. Hattabi, and L. Liu, “An artificial neural network-based model predictive control for three-phase flying-capacitor multilevel inverter,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 70305– 70316, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Model predictive control using artificial neural network for power converters,

    D. Wang, Z. J. Shen, X. Yin, S. Tang, X. Liu, C. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Rodriguez, and M. Norambuena, “Model predictive control using artificial neural network for power converters,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 3689–3699, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Neural network model- predictive control for CHB converters with FPGA implementation,

    F. Simonetti, A. D’Innocenzo, and C. Cecati, “Neural network model- predictive control for CHB converters with FPGA implementation,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 9691– 9702, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Supervised imitation learning of finite- set model predictive control systems for power electronics,

    M. Novak and T. Dragi ˇcevi´c, “Supervised imitation learning of finite- set model predictive control systems for power electronics,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 1717–1723, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Light implementation scheme of ANN-based explicit model-predictive control for DC–DC power converters,

    Y . Xiang, H. S.-H. Chung, and H. Lin, “Light implementation scheme of ANN-based explicit model-predictive control for DC–DC power converters,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 4065–4078, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Long-horizon FCS- MPC-trained 1-d convolution neural networks for FPGA-based power- electronic converter control with a Si/SiC hybrid converter case study,

    N. Li, H. Yu, S. Finney, and P. D. Judge, “Long-horizon FCS- MPC-trained 1-d convolution neural networks for FPGA-based power- electronic converter control with a Si/SiC hybrid converter case study,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 9486– 9496, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” inProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, vol. 15 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 627–635, 2011

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from sim- ulation to the real world,

    J. Tobin, R. Fong, A. Ray, J. Schneider, W. Zaremba, and P. Abbeel, “Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from sim- ulation to the real world,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 23–30, 2017

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Model predictive control—a simple and powerful method to control power converters,

    S. Kouro, P. Cort ´es, R. Vargas, U. Ammann, and J. Rodr ´ıguez, “Model predictive control—a simple and powerful method to control power converters,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1826–1838, 2008

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    Hybrid model predictive control of the step-down dc–dc converter,

    T. Geyer, G. Papafotiou, and M. Morari, “Hybrid model predictive control of the step-down dc–dc converter,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1112–1124, 2008

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    Comparison of hybrid control techniques for buck and boost dc–dc converters,

    S. Mari ´ethoz, S. Alm ´er, M. B ˆaja, G. Beccuti, D. Patino, A. Wernrud, J. Buisson, H. Cormerais, T. Geyer, H. Fujioka, U. Jonsson, C.-Y . Kao, M. Morari, G. Papafotiou, A. Rantzer, and P. Riedinger, “Comparison of hybrid control techniques for buck and boost dc–dc converters,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1126– 1145, 2010

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Model predictive control for a full bridge dc/dc converter,

    Y . Xie, R. Ghaemi, J. Sun, and J. S. Freudenberg, “Model predictive control for a full bridge dc/dc converter,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 164–172, 2012

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    A stabilizing model predictive controller for voltage regulation of a dc/dc boost converter,

    S.-K. Kim, C. R. Park, J.-S. Kim, and Y . I. Lee, “A stabilizing model predictive controller for voltage regulation of a dc/dc boost converter,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2016–2023, 2014

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Model predictive direct power control for grid-connected NPC converters,

    J. Scoltock, T. Geyer, and U. K. Madawala, “Model predictive direct power control for grid-connected NPC converters,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 5319–5328, 2015

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    Finite-set model predictive control for PWM rectifiers based on data-driven neural network predic- tor,

    L. Liu, T. Shi, D. Wang, N. Gu, and Z. Peng, “Finite-set model predictive control for PWM rectifiers based on data-driven neural network predic- tor,” in2024 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), pp. 1–5, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Sampled data model predictive control of a voltage source inverter for reduced harmonic distortion,

    S. Alm ´er, S. Mari´ethoz, and M. Morari, “Sampled data model predictive control of a voltage source inverter for reduced harmonic distortion,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1907–1915, 2013

    work page 1907

  27. [27]

    Statistical performance verification of fcs-MPC applied to three level neutral point clamped converter,

    M. Novak, U. M. Nyman, T. Dragicevic, and F. Blaabjerg, “Statistical performance verification of fcs-MPC applied to three level neutral point clamped converter,” in2018 20th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE’18 ECCE Europe), 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Adaptive reference model pre- dictive control with improved performance for voltage-source inverters,

    Y . Yang, S.-C. Tan, and S. Y . R. Hui, “Adaptive reference model pre- dictive control with improved performance for voltage-source inverters,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 724–731, 2018

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Efficient implicit model-predictive control of a three-phase inverter with an output LC filter,

    M. Nauman and A. Hasan, “Efficient implicit model-predictive control of a three-phase inverter with an output LC filter,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 6075–6078, 2016

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    An improved model predictive control strategy to reduce common-mode voltage for two- level voltage source inverters considering dead-time effects,

    L. Guo, N. Jin, C. Gan, L. Xu, and Q. Wang, “An improved model predictive control strategy to reduce common-mode voltage for two- level voltage source inverters considering dead-time effects,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 3561–3572, 2018

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Performance estima- tion of induction motor using artificial neural network,

    H.-Y . Lee, J.-l. Lee, S.-O. Kwon, and S.-W. Lee, “Performance estima- tion of induction motor using artificial neural network,” in2018 25th International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (IWSSIP), pp. 1–3, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Model predictive control of an inverter with outputLCfilter for UPS applications,

    P. Cort ´es, G. Ortiz, J. I. Yuz, J. Rodr ´ıguez, S. Vazquez, and L. G. Franquelo, “Model predictive control of an inverter with outputLCfilter for UPS applications,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1875–1883, 2009

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Switching strategy based on model predictive control of VSI to obtain high efficiency and balanced loss distribution,

    S. Kwak and J.-C. Park, “Switching strategy based on model predictive control of VSI to obtain high efficiency and balanced loss distribution,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 4551–4567, 2013

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    Predictive-control-based direct power control with an adaptive parameter identification technique for improved AFE performance,

    S. Kwak, U.-C. Moon, and J.-C. Park, “Predictive-control-based direct power control with an adaptive parameter identification technique for improved AFE performance,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 6178–6187, 2014

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Artificial neural network applications in power electronics and electrical drives,

    B. Karanayil and M. F. Rahman, “Artificial neural network applications in power electronics and electrical drives,” inPower electronics hand- book, pp. 1139–1154, Elsevier, 2011

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    Artificial neural network-based voltage control of dc–dc converter for dc microgrid 12 applications,

    H. S. Khan, I. S. Mohamed, K. Kauhaniemi, and L. Liu, “Artificial neural network-based voltage control of dc–dc converter for dc microgrid 12 applications,” in2021 6th IEEE Workshop on the Electronic Grid (eGRID), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Efficient fixed-switching modulated finite control set-model predictive control based on artificial neural networks,

    A. Bakeer, M. Alhasheem, and S. Peyghami, “Efficient fixed-switching modulated finite control set-model predictive control based on artificial neural networks,”Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 3134, 2022

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    From MPC-based to end-to-end (E2E) learning- based control policy for grid-tied 3l-NPC transformerless inverter,

    S. A. Zaid, I. S. Mohamed, A. Bakeer, L. Liu, H. Albalawi, M. E. Tawfiq, and A. M. Kassem, “From MPC-based to end-to-end (E2E) learning- based control policy for grid-tied 3l-NPC transformerless inverter,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 57309–57326, 2022

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Implementation of model predictive control for three-phase inverter with output LC filter on eZdsp f28335 kit using HIL simulation,

    I. S. Mohamed, S. A. Zaid, M. F. Abu-Elyazeed, and H. M. Elsayed, “Implementation of model predictive control for three-phase inverter with output LC filter on eZdsp f28335 kit using HIL simulation,” International Journal of Modelling, Identification and Control, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 301–312, 2016

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Predictive current control of a voltage source inverter,

    J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, C. A. Silva, P. Correa, P. Lezana, P. Cort ´es, and U. Ammann, “Predictive current control of a voltage source inverter,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 495–503, 2007

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    A simplified finite-control-set model-predictive control for power converters,

    C. Xia, T. Liu, T. Shi, and Z. Song, “A simplified finite-control-set model-predictive control for power converters,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 991–1002, 2013

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Finite-level-state model predictive control for sensorless three-phase four-arm modular multilevel converter,

    X. Liu, L. Qiu, Y . Fang, Z. Peng, and D. Wang, “Finite-level-state model predictive control for sensorless three-phase four-arm modular multilevel converter,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 4462–4466, 2019

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Computationally efficient DMPC for three-level NPC back-to-back converters in wind turbine systems with PMSG,

    Z. Zhang, C. M. Hackl, and R. Kennel, “Computationally efficient DMPC for three-level NPC back-to-back converters in wind turbine systems with PMSG,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 8018–8034, 2016

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Deep learning-based model predictive control for resonant power converters,

    S. Lucia, D. Navarro, B. Karg, H. Sarnago, and O. Lucia, “Deep learning-based model predictive control for resonant power converters,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 409– 420, 2020

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Neural network based model predictive controllers for modular multilevel converters,

    S. Wang, T. Dragicevic, Y . Gao, and R. Teodorescu, “Neural network based model predictive controllers for modular multilevel converters,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1562–1571, 2020

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    A backpropaga- tion neural network-based explicit model predictive control for dc–dc converters with high switching frequency,

    J. Chen, Y . Chen, L. Tong, L. Peng, and Y . Kang, “A backpropaga- tion neural network-based explicit model predictive control for dc–dc converters with high switching frequency,”IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 2124–2142, 2020

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Model predictive control of power converters for robust and fast operation of AC microgrids,

    T. Dragi ˇcevi´c, “Model predictive control of power converters for robust and fast operation of AC microgrids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 6304–6317, 2017

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Neural network applications in power electronics and motor drives—an introduction and perspective,

    B. K. Bose, “Neural network applications in power electronics and motor drives—an introduction and perspective,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 14–33, 2007

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    A deep neural network based predictive control strategy for high frequency multilevel converters,

    D. Wang, X. Yin, S. Tang, C. Zhang, Z. J. Shen, J. Wang, and Z. Shuai, “A deep neural network based predictive control strategy for high frequency multilevel converters,” in2018 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), pp. 2988–2992, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Nonlinear control of a buck converter which feeds a constant power load,

    J. A. Solsona, S. G. Jorge, and C. A. Busada, “Nonlinear control of a buck converter which feeds a constant power load,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 7193–7201, 2015

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,

    V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, et al., “Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529–533, 2015

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    Artificial neural networks for spatial perception: Towards visual ob- ject localisation in humanoid robots,

    J. Leitner, S. Harding, M. Frank, A. F ¨orster, and J. Schmidhuber, “Artificial neural networks for spatial perception: Towards visual ob- ject localisation in humanoid robots,” inThe 2013 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2013

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    Supervised imitation learning of fs-MPC algorithm for multilevel converters,

    M. Novak and F. Blaabjerg, “Supervised imitation learning of fs-MPC algorithm for multilevel converters,” in2021 23rd European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE’21 ECCE Europe), 2021

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    An overview of artificial intelli- gence applications for power electronics,

    S. Zhao, F. Blaabjerg, and H. Wang, “An overview of artificial intelli- gence applications for power electronics,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 4633–4658, 2021

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Multi objective modu- lated model predictive control of stand-alone voltage source converters,

    B. Majmunovi ´c, T. Dragiˇcevi´c, and F. Blaabjerg, “Multi objective modu- lated model predictive control of stand-alone voltage source converters,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 2559–2571, 2020

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Latest advances of model predictive control in electrical drives—part i: Basic concepts and advanced strategies,

    J. Rodriguez, C. Garcia, A. Mora, F. Flores-Bahamonde, P. Acuna, M. Novak, Y . Zhang, L. Tarisciotti, S. A. Davari, Z. Zhang, F. Wang, M. Norambuena, T. Dragicevic, F. Blaabjerg, T. Geyer, R. Kennel, D. A. Khaburi, M. Abdelrahem, Z. Zhang, N. Mijatovic, and R. P. Aguilera, “Latest advances of model predictive control in electrical drives—part i: Basic con...

    work page 2022